Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California
 | |
| Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California | |
| Reference: 293 U.S. 245 | |
| Term: 1934 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: October 17-18, 1934 Decided: December 3, 1934 | |
| Outcome | |
| California Supreme Court affirmed | |
| Majority | |
| Pierce Butler • Charles E. Hughes • Willis Van Devanter • James Clark McReynolds • Louis Brandeis • George Sutherland • Harlan Fiske Stone • Owen Josephus Roberts | |
| Concurring | |
| Benjamin Nathan Cardozo | |
Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California is a case decided on December 3, 1934, by the United States Supreme Court holding that states have the authority to require university students to participate in military training. The case concerned the constitutionality of an order of the Regents of the University of California to require male students under the age of 24 to complete a military science course. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the California Supreme Court.[1]
Why it matters: The Supreme Court's decision in this case established that states have the authority to require university students to participate in military training. To read more about the impact of Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California click here.
Background
The Regents of the University of California issued an order to require all able-bodied male students under the age of 24 to participate in a course in military science and tactics in the Reserve Officers Training Corps. A group of students petitioned the university in 1933 to be exempt from the required military course due to a religious objection. The students were members of the Methodist Episcopal Church of the Epworth League and upheld their church's belief that "war, training for war, and military training are immoral, wrong, and contrary to the letter and spirit of His teaching and the precepts of the Christian religion."[1]
The regents of the university denied the students' request for an exemption. When they refused to take the required course, they were suspended. The state court denied the students' petition for a writ of mandate, arguing that the regents of the university have legislative control over the university and its students.[1]
Oral argument
Oral argument was held between October 17, 1934, and October 18, 1934. The case was decided on December 3, 1934.[1]
Decision
The Supreme Court decided unanimously to affirm the decision of the California Supreme Court. Justice Pierce Butler delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Benjamin Nathan Cardozo wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Louis Brandeis and Harlan Fiske Stone.[1]
Opinions
Opinion of the court
Justice Pierce Butler, writing for the court, argued that the regents had the authority to establish required courses at the university and that those requirements did not infringe on the students' liberty or due process rights. Butler posited that students were not forced to attend the University of California and that those who chose to must comply with the university's requirements.[1]
| “ | There needs be no attempt to enumerate or comprehensively to define what is included in the 'liberty' protected by the due process clause. Undoubtedly it does include the right to entertain the beliefs, to adhere to the principles, and to teach the doctrines on which these students base their objections to the order prescribing military training. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 262 U. S. 399; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510; Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 283 U. S. 368-369; Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697, 283 U. S. 707. The fact that they are able to pay their way in this University but not in any other institution in California is without significance upon any constitutional or other question here involved. California has not drafted or called them to attend the University. They are seeking education offered by the state and at the same time insisting that they be excluded from the prescribed course solely upon grounds of their religious beliefs and conscientious objections to war, preparation for war, and military education. Taken on the basis of the facts alleged in the petition, appellants' contentions amount to no more than an assertion that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as a safeguard of 'liberty,' confers the right to be students in the state University free from obligation to take military training as one of the conditions of attendance.[2] | ” |
| —Pierce Butler, majority opinion in Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California[1] | ||
Concurring opinion
Justice Benjamin Nathan Cardozo, in a concurring opinion joined by Justices Louis Brandeis and Harlan Fiske Stone, argued that the university's order does not infringe on individuals' right to freedom of religious expression. Cardozo contended that instruction in military science is not a religion and therefore does not interfere with an individual's free exercise of religion.[1]
| “ | There is no occasion at this time to mark the limits of governmental power in the exaction of military service when the nation is at peace. * The petitioners have not been required to bear arms for any hostile purpose, offensive or defensive, either now or in the future. They have not even been required in any absolute or peremptory way to join in courses of instruction that will fit them to bear arms. If they elect to resort to an institution for higher education maintained with the state's moneys, then and only then they are commanded to follow courses of instruction believed by the state to be vital to its welfare. This may be condemned by some as unwise or illiberal or unfair when there is violence to conscientious scruples, either religious or merely ethical. More must be shown to set the ordinance at naught. In controversies of this order, courts do not concern themselves with matters of legislative policy, unrelated to privileges or liberties secured by the organic law. The First Amendment, if it be read into the Fourteenth, makes invalid any state law 'respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Instruction in military science is not instruction in the practice or tenets of a religion. Neither directly nor indirectly is government establishing a state religion when it insists upon such training. Instruction in military science, unaccompanied here by any pledge of military service, is not an interference by the state with the free exercise of religion when the liberties of the Constitution are read in the light of a century and a half of history during days of peace and war.[2] | ” |
| —Benjamin Nathan Cardozo, concurring opinion in Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California[1] | ||
Impact
| Federalism |
|---|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
- See also: Free Exercise Clause
Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California established that states have the right to require university students to participate in courses on military training and tactics. The decision in this case determined that the Free Exercise Clause extended to state governments, in addition to the federal government.[1][3]
See also
External links
- Full text of case syllabus and opinions (Justia)
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Search Google News for this topic
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 Justia, "Hamilton v. Regents of University of California, 293 U.S. 245 (1934)," accessed August 17, 2022
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ The First Amendment Encyclopedia, "Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California (1934)," accessed August 17, 2022
| |||||